State of Louisiana Versus Nicholas Joseph Williams

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 24-KA-169

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

NICHOLAS JOSEPH WILLIAMS COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 22-4470, DIVISION "M"
HONORABLE SHAYNA BEEVERS MORVANT, JUDGE PRESIDING

December 18, 2024

JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Stephen J. Windhorst,
John J. Molaison, Jr., and Timothy S. Marcel

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED
JJM
SJW
TSM

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
NICHOLAS WILLIAMS
Sherry A. Watters

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Thomas J. Butler
Monique D. Nolan
Matthew Whitworth
Carolyn Chkautovich

MOLAISON, J.

The defendant/appellant appeals his sentence following a conviction for one

count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1.

We affirm the sentence and conviction for the following reasons.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The underlying facts of the case are not in dispute. The State established at

trial that the defendant, Nicholas Williams, was unresponsive in his vehicle after a

single car accident within Jefferson Parish on February 26, 2022. After emergency

personnel administered Narcan to Mr. Williams and removed him from his vehicle,

police located a 9mm handgun on the floorboard. The gun’s extended magazine

contained fourteen rounds of ammunition, and a spent bullet casing was “jammed”

in the gun as well. Officers also observed a bag of narcotics in the vehicle at that

time. After running a criminal history search, police determined that Mr. Williams

had outstanding traffic warrants and prior felony convictions that made it illegal

for him to possess a firearm. The police then arrested Mr. Williams.

On September 13, 2022, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney’s Office

charged Mr. Williams in a bill of information with one count of possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1, based upon Mr.

Williams’ two prior convictions for possession of heroin. A sanity commission

found Mr. Williams competent to stand trial and competent at the time of the

alleged offense. A jury trial commenced on January 22, 2024, and concluded the

following day with a unanimous verdict finding Mr. Williams guilty as charged.

The trial court denied Mr. Williams’ motions for a new trial and post-verdict

judgment of acquittal. On February 6, 2024, the trial court sentenced Mr. Williams

to 20 years at hard labor to be served without benefits. While he objected at the

time of sentencing, Mr. Williams did not file a motion to reconsider sentence. This

timely appeal follows.

24-KA-169 1

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The district court erred in imposing an unconstitutionally excessive,

maximum sentence under the circumstances of this offense and this offender.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

As correctly indicated by Mr. Williams in his appellate brief, trial counsel

did not file a motion to reconsider sentence following resentencing. Pursuant to La

C.Cr.P. art. 881.1(E):

Failure to make or file a motion to reconsider sentence or to
include a specific ground upon which a motion to reconsider sentence
may be based, including a claim of excessiveness, shall preclude the
state or the defendant from raising an objection to the sentence or
from urging any ground not raised in the motion on appeal or review.

The failure to file a written motion to reconsider sentence, or to state specific

grounds for the motion, limits a defendant to a bare review of the sentence for

constitutional excessiveness. State v. Christoff, 00-1823 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/30/01),

788 So.2d 660, 666.

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 20

of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit the imposition of excessive punishment.

Although a sentence is within statutory limits, courts can review it for

constitutional excessiveness. State v. Smith, 01-2574 (La. 1/14/03), 839 So.2d 1, 4.

A sentence is excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the offense or imposes

needless and purposeless pain and suffering. Id. A sentence is grossly

disproportionate if, when the crime and punishment are considered in light of the

harm done to society, it shocks the sense of justice. State v. Lawson, 04-334 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 9/28/04), 885 So.2d 618, 622. The appellate court shall not set aside a

sentence for excessiveness if the record supports the sentence imposed. State v.

Pearson, 07-332 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/07), 975 So.2d 646, 656. We consider

three factors in reviewing a trial court's sentencing discretion: 1) the nature of the

crime; 2) the nature and background of the offender; and 3) the sentence imposed

24-KA-169 2

for similar crimes by the same court and other courts. State v. Allen, 03-1205 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 2/23/04), 868 So.2d 877, 880. However, there is no requirement that

the trial court gives specific matters any particular weight at sentencing. State v.

Tracy, 02-227 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/29/02), 831 So.2d 503, 516, writ denied, 02-

2900 (La. 4/4/03), 840 So.2d 1213.

Generally, courts reserve maximum sentences for cases involving the most

serious violations of the offense charged and the worst type of offender. State v.

Badeaux, 01-406 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/25/01), 798 So.2d 234, 239, writ denied, 01-

2965 (La. 10/14/02), 827 So.2d 414.

At the time of the offense, La. R.S. 14:95.1(B) provided:

B. Whoever is found guilty of violating the provisions of this Section
shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than five nor more than
twenty years without the benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of
sentence and be fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than
five thousand dollars. Notwithstanding the provisions of R.S. 14:27,
whoever is found guilty of attempting to violate the provisions of this
Section shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not more than seven and
one-half years and fined not less than five hundred dollars nor more
than two thousand five hundred dollars.

The record indicates that the defendant was referred as a candidate for participation

in the 24th Judicial District Reentry Court Program. However, the program found

him unsuitable after the defendant denied in a phone call that he had a scheduled

assessment and hung up on the court representative. At the time of sentencing, the

trial judge observed that the defendant was offered a 15-year sentence before trial

as part of a plea deal. The judge also noted, however, that her opinion of that

sentence changed after seeing the defendant’s gun and extended magazine, leading

her to conclude that the crime was “substantially more egregious” than she had

previously thought.

This Court has previously considered maximum sentences imposed on

defendants convicted of La. R.S. 14:95.1, who also have a prior drug conviction as

24-KA-169 3

the underlying offense. In State v. Warmack, 07-311 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/27/07),

973 So.2d 104, we upheld the prior maximum 15-year sentence for a defendant's

possession of a firearm by a felon conviction. In that case, the defendant had three

prior convictions for various drug offenses, and the gun he possessed was fully

loaded. Similarly, in State v. Caffrey, 08-717 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/12/09), 15 So.3d

198, writ denied, 09-1305 (La. 2/5/10), 27 So.3d 297, we upheld the maximum

sentence for a violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1 when the defendant had one prior drug

conviction and possessed a loaded firearm at the time of his arrest, under

circumstances where his actions presented a danger to the public. In State v.

Charles, 20-498 (La. App. 3 Cir. 5/5/21), 318 So.3d 356, the Third Circuit upheld

a 20-year sentence for a defendant convicted of La. R.S. 14:95.1. In that case, the

trial court had evidence before it of the defendant’s prior mental illness, but also

took into account the defendant’s prior convictions and apparent intoxication at the

time of his arrest.

In this case, at the time of his arrest, the defendant had shown great

disregard for public safety by choosing to drive severely impaired, to the point of

an overdose. The firearm in the defendant’s possession, which contained an

extended magazine clip and was fired at least once, similarly posed a threat to

public safety. We note that the defendant disqualified himself from the

opportunity for consideration as a candidate for the court’s reentry program. After

a review of the record and sentences for similar convictions, we cannot say that the

defendant’s sentence is constitutionally excessive or otherwise shocks our sense of

justice.

ERRORS PATENT DISCUSSION

This Court routinely reviews an appellate record for errors patent in

accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975);

24-KA-169 4

and State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1990), regardless of

whether a defendant requests an errors patent review. Upon review, we note that

the transcript does not reflect that the trial court advised defendant of the

provisions of La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. If a trial court fails to advise, or provides an

incomplete advisal pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8, the appellate court may

correct this error by informing the defendant of the applicable prescriptive period

for post-conviction relief in its opinion. State v. Becnel, 18-549 (La. App. 5 Cir.

2/6/19), 265 So.3d 1017, 1022. Accordingly, the defendant is hereby informed that

no application for post-conviction relief, including applications which seek an out-

of-time appeal, shall be considered if filed more than two years after the judgment

of conviction and sentence has become final under the provisions of La. C.Cr.P.

arts. 914 or 922.

DECREE

We affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence for the reasons assigned.

The defendant is further advised that no application for post-conviction relief,

including applications which seek an out-of-time appeal, shall be considered if

filed more than two years after the judgment of conviction and sentence has

become final under the provisions of La. C.Cr.P. arts. 914 or 922.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED

24-KA-169 5

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
DECEMBER 18, 2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-KA-169
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE SHAYNA BEEVERS MORVANT (DISTRICT JUDGE)
SHERRY A. WATTERS (APPELLANT) MONIQUE D. NOLAN (APPELLEE) THOMAS J. BUTLER (APPELLEE)

MAILED
HONORABLE PAUL D. CONNICK, JR.
(APPELLEE)
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
MATTHEW WHITWORTH (APPELLEE)
CAROLYN CHKAUTOVICH (APPELLEE)
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
200 DERBIGNY STREET
GRETNA, LA 70053